United States v. Kamaury Watson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 8, 2020
Docket19-1837
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Kamaury Watson (United States v. Kamaury Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Kamaury Watson, (8th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-1837 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kamaury Taujheim Watson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________

Submitted: March 9, 2020 Filed: May 8, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Kamaury Taujheim Watson pled guilty to possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (9), subject to penalties outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). The district court1 sentenced him to 45 months of imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release. Watson challenges his sentence. According to Watson, the district court misapplied § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”), resulting in an improper sentencing enhancement.

We disagree. Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the Guidelines increases a defendant’s offense level by four points if he “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). And Watson possessed a gun “in connection with” a contemporaneous violation of Iowa Code section 724.4(1). Under United States v. Walker, violating Iowa Code section 724.4(1) counts as “another felony offense” for purposes of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). 771 F.3d 449, 452–53 (8th Cir. 2014).

Watson contends Walker was wrongly decided. However, Walker is binding precedent and one panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel. Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We therefore affirm his sentence. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Michael Walker, Jr.
771 F.3d 449 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
Mader v. United States
654 F.3d 794 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Kamaury Watson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kamaury-watson-ca8-2020.